A few weeks ago, I discussed my love affair with a full-size Pontiac that eluded me years ago, and how it haunts my consciousness. On a related note, I let one of the above land barges get away a couple Aprils ago, and although it doesn’t exactly get under my skin the way the ’65 Catalina does, I still suffer from pangs of non-buyer’s remorse over the ’65 New Yorker 2-door hardtop.

The brochure for the 1965 Chrysler line asks a simple question, which may or may not be rhetorical. I’ll answer and not answer, respectively. No, I couldn’t agree to buy the double-white New Yorker for sale on the side of the road in Traverse City, MI, for the simple reason that it wouldn’t fit in my garage with my other old cars in it. At 218.2 inches long, it’s over a foot longer than my ’65 Skylark and ’53 Special Riviera, which are both really big. This thing gives the phrase “road hugging weight” some, well, weight.

Rhetorically, there’s nothing more to say but that I love the new-for-’65 modern look of this New Yorker. Chrysler had a banner year (as did almost everybody else) in ’65, and its clean new three-boxmobiles looked contemporary and fresh. On the other hand, I can’t imagine my choosing this car over a GM B-Body in ’65. Today, it’s common for car-crazy dorks like me to have several old cars, but if I had one choice in a full-sizer, I would have been all over the Pontiac.

My intention is not to damn with faint praise, however. If I lived on an ample plot of land with a sizable pole barn, I could have gleefully lived out my days with that white New Yorker. This nice 4-door hardtop version exhibits a few reasons why. The taillights are unique and awesome, a combination of clear lenses and colored bulbs. It’s an uncommon look that should have caught on. Additionally, I think the rear panel is among the most stylish of the big cars in ’65, with those gorgeous taillights bookending concave polished trim. Cool.

www.imperialclub.com

I always thought I preferred the Newport/300’s faster sloping c-pillar, but the New Yorker roofline almost seems more “expensive,” more in tune with the theme of the car. The two creases running along the beltline and through the rear fender skirts are in harmony with each other and the gently convex bodyside. Not too much not to like back here.

I don’t, however, think I’d play glamorous race car driver in it. Even with torsion-bar suspension and a 413 disgorging up to 340 rated horsepower, I’d think I’d be happier highway cruising (or floating), at least until I had to fill up the gas tank. I am very familiar with the old Carter AFB, however, so maybe with a little tweaking and prodding…oh, never mind. I’d be happy with 12 MPG.

As I researched the New Yorker, mulling over its purchase, I asked around the C-Body Forum, looking for pitfalls with this model. From all their answers, one very familiar caveat became evident: parts availability. Chrysler Corporation only produced 9,357 New Yorker 2-door hardtops in ’65, and even some of the mechanical parts like shifter cables were different from later model years.

Since I don’t want to be a spoil-sport, let’s avoid discussing the negatives and return to one of the reasons I should have bought this Mopar. I like its dashboard. My favorite dashboards of ’65 have always been Chrysler’s and Mercury’s. Chrysler abandoned pushbutton drive for ’65, which gave them room to completely redesign the instrument cluster, and the half-circle speedometer and dashpad look almost architectural, like an arch in some gothic building. With this dashboard, Chrysler shed the last of the Exner idiom, and as much as I appreciate Exner’s designs, this dashboard seems more in keeping with the time period.

Looking at this picture now, as it’s 0 degrees outside, I just want to climb behind that three-spoke wheel and go somewhere, anywhere (well, somewhere warmer). There’s something magical about peaked fenders, especially when there are directional indicators involved: technology!

In front, the New Yorker had one of the coolest features in the industry: glass-covered headlights! I’m not angling for an ironic tone here, I love those simple panes of glass, and I also love that Chrysler didn’t jump on the stacked-headlight bandwagon. On the other hand, the vinyl-covered C-pillar on the New Yorker takes some getting used to, and the white colored fabric on the one I contemplated purchasing was not in good shape, but that’s no big deal. I could have locked both doors with the key on the driver’s side like the gentleman in the brochure, and that would have more than made up for weak vinyl inserts.

I guess I’ve done enough beating around the bush. I didn’t buy the car and that’s that. The owner emailed me that it ran and drove well (not that that means anything), and I didn’t find any rust on the car as I looked it over (admittedly in the rain). He was only asking $3500 for it, but parts availability and size were the main factors in my “nay” decision.

After I made the decision not to pursue the car, my wife bought me the above advertisement so I’d have something to remember it by. I know she was secretly happy I decided the way I did; she didn’t seem to like the “docking instead of parking” aspect of it. I did get my Big Three fix by purchasing my more reasonably-sized ’65 Dart, so instead of buying the top-of-the-line model, I went with the bottom of the barrel, but that’s a story for another time.

If you look really closely, the car that they torch at the end is not the same one that the guy is driving throughout the video. If I remember correctly, he drives a ’66 new Yorker 4-door hardtop, but they burn a ’65 Newport sedan.

You are preaching to the choir with this article! 🙂 I would have jumped all over a ’65 New Yorker with a solid body and mechanicals for $3500 (then worried about hiding it from my wife).

> As I researched the New Yorker, mulling over its purchase, I asked around the C-Body Forum, looking for pitfalls with this model.

Out of curiosity, which forum did you inquire on? C-Body Dry Dock? For C-Bodies Only?

> With this dashboard, Chrysler shed the last of the Exner idiom, and as much as I appreciate Exner’s designs, this dashboard seems more in keeping with the time period.

Funny you should say that. I’ve read that this instrument cluster was supposedly designed to look similar to the “Astro-globe” dashboards from earlier Chryslers. They even use the same font for the numbers.

The (New Yorker only) clear taillights were discontinued part-way through the model year and regular red lenses were fitted, due to supply issues. Those clear lenses in NOS today are worth a lot of money if you can find them.

The clear headlight covers apparently caused problems for some people. Certain jurisdictions (California?) did roadside inspections, including checking the aim of the headlights. They had to remove the glass covers to attach the fixture to check the headlight aim.

I hear you on not buying it…My wife would have been fine with it; she pretty much lets me do my thing as long as I don’t bankrupt us. It’s one of only a handful that I regret not buying.

I think it was C-Body Dry Dock that I checked, but it’s been about two years now. I remember that I liked the forum a lot, nice people on there.

Interesting about the taillights, I wonder if the one I looked at had them; I can’t remember. In my mind it did, because I really like them, but again, what if you break one? Where would you find a replacement?

I also turned down a rougher ’65 Newport hardtop back in the day, and someone had installed a New Yorker grille and headlight assembly that I thought looked pretty sharp.

Yep…you are dead on about parts availability for these mid 60’s Chryslers. Having owned a 1967 New Yorker up until a couple years ago, it was the small stuff that was the hassle. Dash switches, the headlight one comes to mind. Like looking for hens teeth. But that said..these problems or challenges if you like, 🙂 , come with the territory of owning any older cars…not just Chryslers.
But those cars are still out there ( for a little while yet )…if you have deep enough pockets, so all is not lost for future ownership.
My wife too, has been kind enough to let me have a few toys on the side, my 56 Dodge Regent for starters..bless her heart.
Thanks for the write up.

Superb cars. I always thought the 1965-68 Chrysler New Yorkers contended above their price class. They were fit competitors for Lincoln and Cadillac, which of course left Imperial out in the cold. Oh well, no matter, as I like the Imps too. But had I been signing a check for one in 1965, I would have chosen the New Yorker.

Give me one of those in a four door sedan in metallic green with matching green interior. A very favored memory from my adolescence, and a top of the line drive if you were a priest in the Dioceses of Cleveland.

Oh, my. Love, love, love that car. Two thoughts: First, I test drove a 66 New Yorker 6 window sedan years ago when my daily driver was a 66 Fury III. There was a big difference in the seat quality, as well as in the interior fitments. That dash was just fabulous.

Second, I eventually owned a 68 Newport Custom sedan that I also drove daily. Chrysler poured money into those cars like nothing since the 40s. They are built of very high quality materials, particularly in the interiors. I would take one of these over a 65 GM B body all day every day.

The Turbine engine came close to production, and I agree you could see a lot of the styling in other Mopars.

As for the 1963 Turbine cars themselves, I doubt a production version was ever planned (and I’ve read everything I could about them, including Steve Lehto’s book). The Turbine cars rode on a very unique chassis, at least for Chrysler. They didn’t even have Chrysler’s famed torsion bar suspension, but coil springs up front!

BOC, you are splitting hairs a bit, I meant the engine, which would have made any car it was put in quite radical. 😛 Whatever a production turbine powered car would have looked like I’m sure the press of the day would have heralded “Chrysler Puts Turbine Car into Production”. 😉

BigOldChryslers

Posted February 24, 2014 at 11:46 AM

Sorry, thought you may have been implying that they were going to mass-produce the actual Turbine car. I’m a big Turbine fan (no pun intended). 🙂

There were several made (50?) and were dispersed though out the country for testing. A neighbor of my grandparents was one of those individuals so I was always eager to go visiting in hopes that the Turbine would be out front for me to ogle

All these cars are handsome but that claret is a traffic stopper! Back in the day of these cars to own a New Yorker was a big deal to the average working man. Most did not achieve this reward until retirement if they were lucky.

My grandfather owned a ’65 New Yorker from ’65 to ’72. It was a maroon/red as I remember and was really impressive to my 8 year old self. Power windows! Air conditioning! All the comforts we didn’t have in our own family cars, despite the fact that my Dad worked for Chrysler. When he traded it for a ’72 Newport the reduction in quality was immediately apparent, even factoring in the trim differences between New Yorker and Newport.

along about 1981, a buddy was looking for a cheap car. we stopped at a dealership and they had a rusted out 65 New Yorker 4 dr with a 440. they let us teenagers test drive it without a salesman (probably because they were asking $500 for it) and when we did the obligatory “how does it take off” test I can still remember this old guy in his front yard giving us a dirty look. clouds of white tire smoke caused that…:)

Nothing like having a lot of torque available for maximum hooning ability. Nearly all Chryslers from this period were sold with the 440, which makes for pretty relaxed cruising as well as readily available acceleration. A girl I knew in college (ca 1971-72) had one of these she had acquired from her grandparents. It would easily hold six of us for road trips as long as the middle front passenger didn’t mind being a little cramped. Life just seemed to be a lot simpler then 🙂

My friend’s car must have been a 1966 then because it definitely had the 440. Not that there is much difference between the 413 and the 440, unless I’m mistaken the only difference between them is the 440 has a slightly larger bore.

I am in love (I can’t say that strongly enough) with the Ghia Turbine cars. Here in Michigan, there are four at museums, so I can see them whenever I feel like (although the Chrysler Museum has now closed to the public).

Those are the four I was talking about, although apparently the one at Gilmore is still technically owned by the Detroit Historical Society. I have seen the privately owned one from Indiana, I believe. In fact, I think it was parked in the parking lot at Meadowbrook one year, although I could be mistaken. I’d say that was at least 10 years ago.

Chrysler sometimes brings a Turbine to the bigger shows like Meadowbrook. This one has a museum plate, but who knows which one of the two it is (it could even be Leno’s, since I took this picture in 2007).

Don Andreina

Posted February 25, 2014 at 12:09 AM

That shot reminds me of certain design similarities between the t-bird and the turbine

roger628

Posted February 25, 2014 at 6:57 AM

Both the T-Bird and the Turbine had Elwood Engel’s hand in them.

Don Williamson

Posted February 25, 2014 at 10:05 AM

When I was a freshman in college at USC in Los Angeles, ca 1965-66, Chrysler brought one of these Turbines to campus and put it on display for several days. I did not miss a chance to walk by it whenever I could, it had the whole campus agog, and there was a constant crowd around it. They would schedule a couple of times a day when they would fire it up, it was pretty awesome. They would balance a quarter on its edge on the engine while it was running to show how smooth it was. I believe it was this color (were they all this color?), and it looked so jet/space agey, a very impressive automobile.

BigOldChryslers

Posted February 25, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Yes, they were all this maple colour (called “Turbine Bronze”) with a black vinyl roof, except for one which was used in the movie The Lively Set. That one was painted white.

You’re lucky to have gotten to see one in operation. I have yet to, but hopefully I’ll have an opportunity while there are still a few operational examples. Chrysler installed their last crate turbine engine in the car that they sold to Jay Leno.

Don Williamson

Posted February 25, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Big Old Chrysler, you’ll have to give Jay a call, I would think he’s got plenty of time on his hands now! Hope you can finally get to see one underway. Yeah, guess I was lucky, it was the coolest thing to see that engine spool up, just like a 707 getting ready for takeoff. But then it seemed to run so smoothly and quietly once it was running, as I recalI. I had great hopes back then that it would make it into production. Weren’t several loaned out to individuals/families for a test period? I would have loved to have been on that list.

Did Chrysler manufacture several of these engines and leave them crated up all these years? That’s amazing, to quote the late Huell Howser!

BigOldChryslers

Posted February 25, 2014 at 1:43 PM

Yes, they loaned out 50 Turbines to families all over the US to try for a short time. The program wrapped-up in 1966 and most of the cars were crushed. Chrysler manufactured lots of spare engines for them, so they had some left over at the end of the program. They may have also kept the engines from the cars that were destroyed, because the cars didn’t have engines in them when they were crushed. behind closed doors, Chrysler also continued developing their turbine engine into the late 70’s.

The 6 cars that went to museums were supposed to have their engines “disabled”, but later Chrysler decided to send each of the recipients a brand new crate engine as well. If any Turbine needs a new engine in the future, it will have to come from one of these.

65 Pontiac or 65 Chrysler. What a year. Everytime I decide which one I would prefer, I remember the 65 Cadillac and my brain starts going in circles again. As my uncle once graffiti’d in my dad’s workshop; ‘I love all the women in the world!’

This was my ride in high school. Had the best indoor door handles of any car.

You could push start that transmission – yes the auto – it was so over-engineered. And w/ radials you didn’t need snow tires and it handled very well. The air was COLD – much more than today.

The 2 door proportions seem off to me. Had the 4 hardtop w/ buckets, exterior dark green. Those silver lenses didn’t last the whole year – there were problems w/ condensation inside. Headlights were covered with glass like the Imperial to make it look part of the real chrome grill.

Any well equipped ’65 – ’68 C body is welcome in my garage. The ’67 is probably my favorite year in general. But, I could love this car with all my heart.

The Chrysler (and I believe a few ’67 – ’68 Imperials) C pillar only vinyl cover always struck me as a little odd, but it is a quirk I’ve come to love and accept. What was the thinking? It was the only part of the vinyl top most people could see, so why bother with a full one?

With black as fashionable as it is now, and me enjoying my first black car, the rare black cars in the ads really stand out.

These cars were common daily drivers right through the ’80s in cold country, a testament to what they were made of.

The reason they could only do vinyl on the C-pillar is that more formal roof of the New Yorker (vs. Newports and 300s) had a drip rail running through the c-pillar, creating a break in the roof.
I believe the roof on these New Yorkers was actually the same for the 4 door and the 2 door hardtops – they just made the doors longer. Imperial did the same thing from ’64 to 66, but at least gave the Crown Coupe the more formal Lebaron roof.
Cadillac was far more clever. The roof on the ’63/4 Series 62 and Coupe DeVille 2 door hardtops was the 4 door roof from the Chevy Impala! Gave them a racier look without having to tool a new body part!
BTW, love the ’65 New Yorker. As I’ve posted before, my grandfather had a 4 door hardtop in a kind of turquoise blue. Kept it until ’73 when he traded it in on his last car, a Monaco Brougham. His ’65 had no vinyl on the c-pillar was late enough in the year that it had red tail light lenses, at least as I remember.
Question: was looking at the ’65 brochure recently, and all the New Yorker interior shots showed wood trim panels on the door and wood trim on the dash. Fake, I assume, but what’s weird is I don’t remember my grandfather’s car having either. Were all ’65 New Yorkers so equipped?

New Yorkers got a (fake) woodgrain inset in the dashboard, 300s got chrome, and Newports got black. That was the case in ’66 for sure, and I’m pretty sure ’65 as well. I’ve seen one or two cars for sale online that had mixed-up dashboards, which were either assembly line goofs or owners swapped parts around.

The woodgrain on the NYer door panels may have depended on what interior was specified. I don’t have a ’65 Paint & Trim book to confirm, but IIRC there was a 1966 NYer interior option that had door panels without wooden inserts (possibly just on the Town Sedan).

Also, from my own observations, all ’65 Chryslers had a copper-coloured center in the horn ring, while ’66 Chryslers had a bluish diamond-like center except for the 300, which still got the copper-coloured center.

Good point about the vinyl roof. I looked at a ’66 New Yorker 4-door hardtop that was for sale out in BC before and I thought it had a full vinyl roof, but now I need to go back and check my ’66 Paint & Trim book and also look at my pictures to refresh my memory.

According to Collectible Automobile, the C-pillar “ear muffs” were problematic in that rain water would get behind them and run to the bottom, causing them to puff out at the juncture of the pillar and quarter panel.

Mmmmmm… C Bodies. Loved them as a kid, and still love them. Back in the mid ’70s my dad had a client that drove a white-on-red 66 Newport 2 door hardtop… boy, did I lust for that car! Never have fulfilled my lust for a C Body though… don’t have anywhere to put one currently. Ah well…

I bought a green on green 68 New Yorker for $100.00 from my neighbors ex around 1983. He had a serious drinking problem and the car had several dents and no wheelcovers. It was a four door hardtop. The AC didn’t work and the trans had a leak, but it ran well. That 440 had some torque! It wound up being “borrowed” by my sister for a while and was driven until the engine locked up after a freeze plug blew. I had planned to put engine/trans in my 1970 C10. Just as well, I doubt I would have actually ever made that happen. It was fun taking off from stoplights, it really could move considering how heavy that old barge was.

Aaron, thanks for putting this rose among the thorns: some of the cars here of the last few days have been pretty unappealing rather than appealingly pretty. My great aunt and uncle bought a new 65 Newport 4-door hardtop when they retired and moved from the midwest to SoCal. It was a metallic turquoise and their first car with air conditioning. My uncle was meticulous about his cars and when I moved here in 72 the Newport, approaching 100K, still looked and rode like new and the AirTemp ran icy cold on 100 degree days. They deliberately waited to trade in their beloved mint 55 DeSoto coupe until Chrysler abandoned pushbutton transmission controls – for some reason my uncle hated them. The reward was buying one of the best Chryslers ever, both beautiful and very reliable. I loved the dash and as I recall even the Newport had a cloth and vinyl upholstery combination that looked and felt expensive. You didn’t have to buy a New Yorker to get a nice Chrysler in 65.

In 1965 our next door neighbor bought a huge Airstream trailer. He soon determined his ’63 Ambassador wasn’t up to the task of being a proper tow vehicle. So, in early 1966 it was replaced by a new ’66 white Town & Country Wagon. 440 Magnum TNT with the cool luggage rack that went the length of the roof. The exhaust note made as he backed that Airstream up the hilly driveway was heavenly music.